Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1143095" data-attributes="member: 5834">reAs I said, surprise round should take cafe of it. No, you don't have to set up the rules to cover every situation.You have to be able to arbitrate as a DM a reasonable solution to a problem that the rules don't cover. Not in any game that reasonable people are playing. If the person purposely decides not to attack while invisible, so that he doesn't break his invisibility, I will not consider that person flanking.exactly. It is exactly the same without overcomplicating the scenario. DM's have alot to remember. I don't want to have to remember whether or not the rogue actually hit in the first round.Once the invisible attacker moves in for the flank a surprise round or a listen check will alert the defender. If the invisible attacker chooses not to attack, then as far as I'm concerned the defender is not flanked. Actually choosing not to attack will cause me to rule that the defender is not flanking.DM's can make arbitrary rulings when players attempt to manipulate rules in such a way that it would not make sense or even a good scene in a story.He still threatens if he is flanking. The person still hears the rogue in combat behind him. Its up to the defender to move out of the flank once he is attacked. Its pretty simple.Yes, he is still threatening. D&D us very ambiguous. If I used your assertion that turning to attack another opponent caused an invisible rogue to not be flanking, that would work with any opponent. Any time a person turned their attention elsewhere, they would be considered not flanking. In ambiguous D&D combat, whether you are attacking the flanked opponent or not is irrelevant. I don't think they should be. If you re-read my post, you will see that I stated "alerting the defender" was important by whatever means necessary such attacking, taunting or some other means. Attacking is one method, but there are others.</blockquote>The defender and the visible rogue should have no clue that the invisible guy is doing something else, hence, the defender should still be flanked by both rogues as long as the invisible rogue is still threatening him (via the books definition of threatening).[/QUOTE]Agreed. I never stated otherwise. My only requirement is that the invisible attacker alert the defender to his presence in some way. He can't stand there and think threatenting thoughts (even if he has telepathy).[/QUOTE]

Verification